UPDATE BELOW 21 SEP 07 13:46 CST
Ah, David Byrne, you have never spoken truer words...
September 17th, 2007:
BAGHDAD - The Iraqi government announced Monday it was ordering Blackwater USA, the security firm that protects U.S. diplomats, to leave the country after what it said was the fatal shooting of eight Iraqi civilians following a car bomb attack against a State Department convoy.
The order by the Interior Ministry, if carried out, would deal a severe blow to U.S. government operations in Iraq by stripping diplomats, engineers, reconstruction officials and others of their security protection.
The presence of so many visible, aggressive Western security contractors has angered many Iraqis, who consider them a mercenary force that runs roughshod over people in their own country.
Larry Johnson:
First problem. Blackwater does not have a license to operate in Iraq and does not need one. They have a U.S. State Department contract through Diplomatic Security. Instead of using Diplomatic Security officers or hiring new Security officers or relying on U.S. military personnel, the Bush Administration has contracted with firms like Blackwater, Triple Canopy, and others for people capable of conducting personnel security details. State Department is not about to curtail the contract with Blackwater, who is tightly wired into Washington. Plus, State Department simply does not have the bodies available to carry out the security mission.
Second problem. The Iraqi government has zero power to enforce a decision to oust a firm like Blackwater. For starters, Blackwater has a bigger air force and more armored vehicles then the Iraqi Army and police put together. As Spencer Ackerman reported, Blackwater’s little bird helicopter (an aircraft normally used by U.S. special operations forces) that was firing mini guns at Iraqi targets on the ground this past weekend.
I can only imagine how Americans would react if there were Russian, Chinese, Mexican, or French security firms running around the United States and getting into firefights in tough neighborhoods, such as South Central Los Angeles. We would just shrug our shoulders and say nothing. Right?
Yeah, that’s what I thought. This incident will enrage Iraqis and their subsequent realization that they are impotent to do anything about it will do little to support the fantasy that the surge is working. There are some Iraqis who genuinely want to run their own country. But we are not about to give them the keys to the car. Blackwater is staying.
Jeremy Scahill on CNN:
SCAHILL: Well, the in fact of the matter is the Bush administration failed to build the coalition of willing nations to occupy Iraq. And so, instead, the administration has built a coalition of billing corporations.
SCAHILL: Right now in Iraq, the private personnel on the U.S. government payroll outnumber official U.S. troops. There are 180,000 so-called private contractors operating alongside of 165,000, 170,000 U.S. troops. So really now the U.S. military is the junior partner in this coalition. The mercenary component of the private sector involvement has been totally unaccountable. They operate with impunity. They kill Iraqi civilians and no charges are ever brought against them, in Iraqi law, U.S. law, military law.
HOLMES: If you’re critical of what companies like companies like Blackwater are doing and how they are behaving, what’s the alternative?
SCAHILL: I think the United States needs to withdraw from Iraq. And I believe the U.S. government needs to pay reparations to the Iraqi people. We hear all of this talk of militias and sectarian violence. What about the militias that the U.S. has deployed in Iraq that are running around the country unaccountable? No, I believe — and I’ve spent a lot of time in Iraq — I believe the United States needs to withdraw and pay reparations to the Iraqi people. The arrogance of the West, toward Iraq is incredible. This is a civilization that’s been around for thousands and thousands of years. We think that we’re going to somehow bring the solution to Iraq? No, these are people that can very much dictate their own destiny and they should be allowed to do so, and mercenaries need to get out of Iraq immediately.
Democracy Now!, September 21, 2007:
In Iraq, the private security firm Blackwater USA is reportedly back on the streets of Baghdad despite an announced ban on its activities. The Iraqi government said it had revoked Blackwater’s license this week after its guards killed up to twenty-eight Iraqis in an unprovoked mass shooting. But a Pentagon spokesperson said today Blackwater is guarding diplomatic convoys following talks with the Iraqi government.
UPDATE:
NYT:
BAGHDAD, Sept. 20 — Iraq’s Ministry of Interior has concluded that employees of a private American security firm fired an unprovoked barrage in the shooting last Sunday in which at least eight Iraqis were killed and is proposing a radical reshaping of the way American diplomats and contractors here are protected.
In the first comprehensive account of the day’s events, the ministry said that security guards for Blackwater USA, a company that guards all senior American diplomats here, fired on Iraqis in their cars in midday traffic.
The account says that as soon as the guards took positions in four locations in the square, they began shooting south, killing a driver who had failed to heed a traffic policeman’s call to stop.
“The Blackwater company is considered 100 percent guilty through this investigation,” the report concludes.
Friday, September 21, 2007
Saturday, September 15, 2007
More Changes
Glenda has decided to mothball The Tude. I understand her reasons, but am still saddened by the short life that it lived. It was a good idea, and I enjoyed and am proud of the pieces I wrote for it.
On other fronts, the Zero Day is fast approaching when I will bid the Alley farewell and begin the next chapter of my life here in Houston--at least for the foreseeable future. You never know where or when things are going to take you. An exhaustive post about the process of coming to the decision and some of the reasons as well as what I'm looking toward doing next is in the works and will be forthcoming in mid October.
Meanwhile, I'm beat. I mowed and edged the lawn this morning (something I enjoy doing) and then went over to a friend's house to finish some electrical wiring I was doing for them in their garage, and then went to kickball practice after that. The theater has a team that I just started playing for, and the championship tournament starts on Monday. The team hasn't won a game all season, and the prospects of winning the first round game are low (it's against one of the best teams in the league), but it's fun and that's pretty much all that counts. The gist of all this is that I'm going to turn off the college football game that's on (Boston College mauling Georgia Tech--sorry, not Earth shattering to me...) and hit the old hay so that I have plenty of energy for viewing the football that counts tomorrow.
On other fronts, the Zero Day is fast approaching when I will bid the Alley farewell and begin the next chapter of my life here in Houston--at least for the foreseeable future. You never know where or when things are going to take you. An exhaustive post about the process of coming to the decision and some of the reasons as well as what I'm looking toward doing next is in the works and will be forthcoming in mid October.
Meanwhile, I'm beat. I mowed and edged the lawn this morning (something I enjoy doing) and then went over to a friend's house to finish some electrical wiring I was doing for them in their garage, and then went to kickball practice after that. The theater has a team that I just started playing for, and the championship tournament starts on Monday. The team hasn't won a game all season, and the prospects of winning the first round game are low (it's against one of the best teams in the league), but it's fun and that's pretty much all that counts. The gist of all this is that I'm going to turn off the college football game that's on (Boston College mauling Georgia Tech--sorry, not Earth shattering to me...) and hit the old hay so that I have plenty of energy for viewing the football that counts tomorrow.
Tuesday, September 4, 2007
Understanding (or trying to)
NOTE: UPDATE BELOW
Raw Story:
Some critics have accused Republican leaders of orchestrating a witch-hunt against Craig, forcing him out in the knowledge that Idaho's Republican governor can fill his Senate seat temporarily with another party member.
Another Republican, David Vitter, has apologized after his name was found in the phone book of a Washington escort service run by the "DC Madam." But the Louisiana senator has not come under nearly as much pressure to resign.
Louisiana has a Democratic governor, and Vitter's departure would strengthen the Democrats' razor-thin Senate majority over the Republicans of 51-49.
Gillespie denied charges of double-standards levied against the Republicans over their handling of Craig, an ardent opponent of gay marriage and an outspoken critic of sexual improprieties by other politicians.
"The fact is that Senator Craig pled guilty to a crime and, therefore, was convicted of a crime," he said.
"Senator Vitter has not been charged with a crime or let alone convicted of one. So there's a pretty big distinction here."
Also being left conspicuously alone in his circumstance is Ted Stevens. Stevens is in pretty serious trouble over the contractors whom he engaged to do work on his Alaska home:
The project, which more than doubled the size of the dwelling, was overseen by Veco CEO Bill Allen, who two months ago pleaded guilty to bribing state lawmakers and agreed to cooperate with authorities.
Stevens's seat would also not be a shoo in to be held by the GOP if he were forced to step down, but that seems to me to be too convenient an explanation. Call me cynical (because I am), but Vitter's and Stevens's infractions are right in line with time old traditions in politics from further back than when the Republican party was the Republican party: Whoring with FEMALES and dealing with crooked businessmen to save some money. Not quite the same as being caught in a sting (whether it was entrapment or a larger part of a 'witch hunt' is up for debate) soliciting a Male on Male sexual encounter in a public place, given the mindset of the average Republican constituent and the general message that has been espoused by the Party concerning Gay rights and "Family Values', per se.
Speaking this evening on The Monitor, Pokie interviewed author and Gay historian John D’Emilio about the past week that Craig has had, arguably one of the roughest weeks in history for any U. S. politician in any circumstance. Not only was he completely abandoned and thrown to the wolves by his own party, but the GLB community was deafeningly silent.
It got me to thinking about a post I wrote for the 'Tude earlier this week on this subject. As a straight male I don't know how qualified I am to be writing in depth analysis (if this can be qualified as such) on the subject, but I do know that I have a greater than average amount of professional and social contact with gays and lesbians (working in the entertainment business and having and above average number of friends who are or were in the process of figuring out that they are gay in high school and my Unitarian Church youth group) and therefore am more aware of issues that directly impact the community. I opened the comments section of the post up with a question about why it's so hard for one to accept one's sexual orientation and move on from there.
An innocent enough query, but one that is likely to get me pretty severely dressed down (pun intended?) for my ignorance and nerve at asking such a question when I have absolutely no frame of reference.
In order to frame the environment that Craig grew up in, E'Milio spoke of the Idaho witch hunt perpetrated against homosexual men in the 1950's when Craig was a young man. Police in Boise, not a large city to begin with, rounded up 1000 men and questioned them about places they frequented and people they associated with. Men left Idaho, some committed suicide. D'Emilio grew up in New York at the same time, and spoke of it as one of the "Gay Capitals' , but reiterated that even there there was nowhere for him to go and be with people like him. Idaho must have been a thousand times worse.
Craig has been taken to task for scolding Bill Clinton for his conduct during his Presidency, as have hundreds of other politicians, Republican and Democrat. In addition to riding on the coattails of public outrage over the episode (artificially manufactured by the media to a large extent) it seems to me that much of this condemnation came out of the fact that it happened WHERE it happened in contrast to the nature of the event. The fact that Clinton initially lied to the his family, the public and Congress about it didn't help matters much either. But if he had had his encounters with La Monica elsewhere, the prospect of their degree of sensationalism and even newsworthiness probably would have been greatly diminished. Any improper behavior that takes place in the Oval Office seems to take on an additional allure and weight. The Republicans would have jumped just as eagerly and viciously if he had been caught taking a bribe, or anything else, IF IT HAPPENED IN THE OVAL OFFICE. For Craig, the condemnation and the nature of it ("He's a nasty, naughty boy") were specifically designed to fall in line lockstep with the Party dogma concerning infidelity and impropriety. Based on the fact that he probably started denying his own sexual identity at such a young age in Idaho probably made denials and "hypocritical" declarations very easy for him.
D'Emilio also pointed out that to people my age and younger, the contrast between the treatment that Gay issues and Gay rights get today is vastly different than twenty or thirty years ago, when he and Craig were just coming into their own agewise, although their sexual identity and orientation were apparent to them years before that. Even twenty five years ago, when Craig was embroiled in a page scandal not unlike the one that brought Mark Foley down last Fall, he had to vehemently deny not only the accusations of the scandal but any hint of a notion that he may have any homosexual inclinations. This was 1982, when AIDS was still just a whisper behind closed doors (not even referred to as AIDS, but as "The Gay Cancer").
De'Emilio was by no means condoning Craig's behavior but rather, making an attempt to shine some light on the terrifying and crushing isolation that this man, like many others like him, has had to endure on a daily basis just to function in the world on a quasi-normal basis. Even as a respected (until now) elected official, loved husband and family man, he was faced with this loneliness that had no outlet for relief (in the form of the fellowship of others like him) because he could reveal it to no one. Certainly a degree of the severity of his circumstances were a result of his own life choices which necessitated various modes and methods of deception and misinformation about who he is as a person, but that couldn't diminish the reality of the isolation.
I recently viewed two films that I had been meaning to see ever since they came out but didn't catch in the theater (not exactly a result of slackerdom: my work necessitates me sitting in a dark room and watching a story unfold in front of me on a stage (usually repeatedly), so I am seldom inclined to pay 8 or 10 dollars to sit in a dark room and watch a story unfold in front of me on a screen) But I digress. The two films in question were A History of Violence and the new Casino Royale. Both good films in their own right, and both concerned in large part with major characters willfully living lives full of contradictions and inaccuracies. Why? There had to be more to it than escape from a past as a mob hit man which almost certainly would have ended in violent death or the maintenance of cover as a 00 agent in Her Majesty's Secret Service, and so must there have had to have been a reason for Larry Craig to live his elaborate life of lies which only now has come crashing down around him. Acceptance in a world that he thought would eliminate his desires? A need to be as close to those that he most admired? This is the aspect of this issue that I'm least familiar with and am most shaky putting forth theories on, so I'll leave it there.
I like women, I'm not insecure about how much of a man I am (because I don't feel the need to project my masculinity on anyone who comes within five feet of me), and I am pretty comfortable with who I am as a Human Being. These three things seem to be hotbed issues that many men feel they have to prove over and over again in today's society, and if they aren't proven daily, then your status as a man is questioned, and therefore your worth as a Human Being is questioned. I'm sure that working in the Arts for as long as I have has colored my views about how easy it is to fit in and be accepted by professional peers, but I certainly don't regret it. If anything, it has given me that chance to be a more well rounded individual since it has exposed me to a variety of personalities. It certainly has gone a long way to giving me the outlook that motivated me to think about what D'Emilio said (and to listen to the show that he was on and the station that it was on, come to think of it) and to spend the time I have to write this post. It's taken me longer than any other post I've written (I usually have an idea and slam some stuff out and publish within a few hours--I'm sure it shows sometimes), but with this one I had to put stuff down and walk away several times. Hopefully it will rub of on future posts and they will benefit from it by being a little more polished, but, who knows? I may go back to the old slam 'em out mode tomorrow.
Larry Craig may have become a politician for the wrong reasons and lived the majority of his life as a huge falsehood. He may still be trying to pitifully maintain the illusion of that falsehood with the help of a few friends and his family, but he is still a human being who has been abandoned by most people he thought he could count on. He has entered a new chapter of the story that is his Hellish life of denial and shame. Deserved or not, I kinda feel sorry for him.
UPDATE 5 Sept 07 09:30:
Many of you are probably wondering what I was smoking when I posted this in light of these recent developments. But it just reinforces my point about the pitiful nature of Craig and the long stretch of meaningless existence he sees his remaining life as being if he is indeed forced to leave the Senate. And it would appear that he (along with one other spineless self annointed fixture in the Capitol) is the only one who thinks he can make a serious attempt to do this...
Raw Story:
Some critics have accused Republican leaders of orchestrating a witch-hunt against Craig, forcing him out in the knowledge that Idaho's Republican governor can fill his Senate seat temporarily with another party member.
Another Republican, David Vitter, has apologized after his name was found in the phone book of a Washington escort service run by the "DC Madam." But the Louisiana senator has not come under nearly as much pressure to resign.
Louisiana has a Democratic governor, and Vitter's departure would strengthen the Democrats' razor-thin Senate majority over the Republicans of 51-49.
Gillespie denied charges of double-standards levied against the Republicans over their handling of Craig, an ardent opponent of gay marriage and an outspoken critic of sexual improprieties by other politicians.
"The fact is that Senator Craig pled guilty to a crime and, therefore, was convicted of a crime," he said.
"Senator Vitter has not been charged with a crime or let alone convicted of one. So there's a pretty big distinction here."
Also being left conspicuously alone in his circumstance is Ted Stevens. Stevens is in pretty serious trouble over the contractors whom he engaged to do work on his Alaska home:
The project, which more than doubled the size of the dwelling, was overseen by Veco CEO Bill Allen, who two months ago pleaded guilty to bribing state lawmakers and agreed to cooperate with authorities.
Stevens's seat would also not be a shoo in to be held by the GOP if he were forced to step down, but that seems to me to be too convenient an explanation. Call me cynical (because I am), but Vitter's and Stevens's infractions are right in line with time old traditions in politics from further back than when the Republican party was the Republican party: Whoring with FEMALES and dealing with crooked businessmen to save some money. Not quite the same as being caught in a sting (whether it was entrapment or a larger part of a 'witch hunt' is up for debate) soliciting a Male on Male sexual encounter in a public place, given the mindset of the average Republican constituent and the general message that has been espoused by the Party concerning Gay rights and "Family Values', per se.
Speaking this evening on The Monitor, Pokie interviewed author and Gay historian John D’Emilio about the past week that Craig has had, arguably one of the roughest weeks in history for any U. S. politician in any circumstance. Not only was he completely abandoned and thrown to the wolves by his own party, but the GLB community was deafeningly silent.
It got me to thinking about a post I wrote for the 'Tude earlier this week on this subject. As a straight male I don't know how qualified I am to be writing in depth analysis (if this can be qualified as such) on the subject, but I do know that I have a greater than average amount of professional and social contact with gays and lesbians (working in the entertainment business and having and above average number of friends who are or were in the process of figuring out that they are gay in high school and my Unitarian Church youth group) and therefore am more aware of issues that directly impact the community. I opened the comments section of the post up with a question about why it's so hard for one to accept one's sexual orientation and move on from there.
An innocent enough query, but one that is likely to get me pretty severely dressed down (pun intended?) for my ignorance and nerve at asking such a question when I have absolutely no frame of reference.
In order to frame the environment that Craig grew up in, E'Milio spoke of the Idaho witch hunt perpetrated against homosexual men in the 1950's when Craig was a young man. Police in Boise, not a large city to begin with, rounded up 1000 men and questioned them about places they frequented and people they associated with. Men left Idaho, some committed suicide. D'Emilio grew up in New York at the same time, and spoke of it as one of the "Gay Capitals' , but reiterated that even there there was nowhere for him to go and be with people like him. Idaho must have been a thousand times worse.
Craig has been taken to task for scolding Bill Clinton for his conduct during his Presidency, as have hundreds of other politicians, Republican and Democrat. In addition to riding on the coattails of public outrage over the episode (artificially manufactured by the media to a large extent) it seems to me that much of this condemnation came out of the fact that it happened WHERE it happened in contrast to the nature of the event. The fact that Clinton initially lied to the his family, the public and Congress about it didn't help matters much either. But if he had had his encounters with La Monica elsewhere, the prospect of their degree of sensationalism and even newsworthiness probably would have been greatly diminished. Any improper behavior that takes place in the Oval Office seems to take on an additional allure and weight. The Republicans would have jumped just as eagerly and viciously if he had been caught taking a bribe, or anything else, IF IT HAPPENED IN THE OVAL OFFICE. For Craig, the condemnation and the nature of it ("He's a nasty, naughty boy") were specifically designed to fall in line lockstep with the Party dogma concerning infidelity and impropriety. Based on the fact that he probably started denying his own sexual identity at such a young age in Idaho probably made denials and "hypocritical" declarations very easy for him.
D'Emilio also pointed out that to people my age and younger, the contrast between the treatment that Gay issues and Gay rights get today is vastly different than twenty or thirty years ago, when he and Craig were just coming into their own agewise, although their sexual identity and orientation were apparent to them years before that. Even twenty five years ago, when Craig was embroiled in a page scandal not unlike the one that brought Mark Foley down last Fall, he had to vehemently deny not only the accusations of the scandal but any hint of a notion that he may have any homosexual inclinations. This was 1982, when AIDS was still just a whisper behind closed doors (not even referred to as AIDS, but as "The Gay Cancer").
De'Emilio was by no means condoning Craig's behavior but rather, making an attempt to shine some light on the terrifying and crushing isolation that this man, like many others like him, has had to endure on a daily basis just to function in the world on a quasi-normal basis. Even as a respected (until now) elected official, loved husband and family man, he was faced with this loneliness that had no outlet for relief (in the form of the fellowship of others like him) because he could reveal it to no one. Certainly a degree of the severity of his circumstances were a result of his own life choices which necessitated various modes and methods of deception and misinformation about who he is as a person, but that couldn't diminish the reality of the isolation.
I recently viewed two films that I had been meaning to see ever since they came out but didn't catch in the theater (not exactly a result of slackerdom: my work necessitates me sitting in a dark room and watching a story unfold in front of me on a stage (usually repeatedly), so I am seldom inclined to pay 8 or 10 dollars to sit in a dark room and watch a story unfold in front of me on a screen) But I digress. The two films in question were A History of Violence and the new Casino Royale. Both good films in their own right, and both concerned in large part with major characters willfully living lives full of contradictions and inaccuracies. Why? There had to be more to it than escape from a past as a mob hit man which almost certainly would have ended in violent death or the maintenance of cover as a 00 agent in Her Majesty's Secret Service, and so must there have had to have been a reason for Larry Craig to live his elaborate life of lies which only now has come crashing down around him. Acceptance in a world that he thought would eliminate his desires? A need to be as close to those that he most admired? This is the aspect of this issue that I'm least familiar with and am most shaky putting forth theories on, so I'll leave it there.
I like women, I'm not insecure about how much of a man I am (because I don't feel the need to project my masculinity on anyone who comes within five feet of me), and I am pretty comfortable with who I am as a Human Being. These three things seem to be hotbed issues that many men feel they have to prove over and over again in today's society, and if they aren't proven daily, then your status as a man is questioned, and therefore your worth as a Human Being is questioned. I'm sure that working in the Arts for as long as I have has colored my views about how easy it is to fit in and be accepted by professional peers, but I certainly don't regret it. If anything, it has given me that chance to be a more well rounded individual since it has exposed me to a variety of personalities. It certainly has gone a long way to giving me the outlook that motivated me to think about what D'Emilio said (and to listen to the show that he was on and the station that it was on, come to think of it) and to spend the time I have to write this post. It's taken me longer than any other post I've written (I usually have an idea and slam some stuff out and publish within a few hours--I'm sure it shows sometimes), but with this one I had to put stuff down and walk away several times. Hopefully it will rub of on future posts and they will benefit from it by being a little more polished, but, who knows? I may go back to the old slam 'em out mode tomorrow.
Larry Craig may have become a politician for the wrong reasons and lived the majority of his life as a huge falsehood. He may still be trying to pitifully maintain the illusion of that falsehood with the help of a few friends and his family, but he is still a human being who has been abandoned by most people he thought he could count on. He has entered a new chapter of the story that is his Hellish life of denial and shame. Deserved or not, I kinda feel sorry for him.
UPDATE 5 Sept 07 09:30:
Many of you are probably wondering what I was smoking when I posted this in light of these recent developments. But it just reinforces my point about the pitiful nature of Craig and the long stretch of meaningless existence he sees his remaining life as being if he is indeed forced to leave the Senate. And it would appear that he (along with one other spineless self annointed fixture in the Capitol) is the only one who thinks he can make a serious attempt to do this...
Saturday, September 1, 2007
Unjustifiable Means
I just posted a rather long tude over at the 'Tude dealing with the latest technological innovations that the FBI has implemented in their wiretapping program.
We're getting ready to open John Patrick Shanley's Doubt at The Alley. Without giving too much away, it details the struggles of a Nun at a Catholic school to remove a perceived (by her) threat to the students by whatever means necessary. At the very end of the play she makes a terrifying declaration while attempting to justify her actions to her protege, a younger and much less life experienced Nun:
"In the pursuit of wrongdoing, one steps away from God."
Much of what has been going on in the past six years in the pursuit of wrongdoing and terrorism on the part of our government has been done while "stepping away from the Law, Justice, and Human Decency."
We must never forget that no matter what the deed being responded to and how dire the threat, the ends never justify the means. Acting otherwise only leads to reducing oneself to the same level as the wrongdoer, or worse, even lower.
We're getting ready to open John Patrick Shanley's Doubt at The Alley. Without giving too much away, it details the struggles of a Nun at a Catholic school to remove a perceived (by her) threat to the students by whatever means necessary. At the very end of the play she makes a terrifying declaration while attempting to justify her actions to her protege, a younger and much less life experienced Nun:
"In the pursuit of wrongdoing, one steps away from God."
Much of what has been going on in the past six years in the pursuit of wrongdoing and terrorism on the part of our government has been done while "stepping away from the Law, Justice, and Human Decency."
We must never forget that no matter what the deed being responded to and how dire the threat, the ends never justify the means. Acting otherwise only leads to reducing oneself to the same level as the wrongdoer, or worse, even lower.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)